Y DNA I2b1
__R1b DNA is NOT the royal line. I have been saying this for years, I am direct line from the Earls of Angus and High Stewarts and my Father is I2b1. The Douglass clan site and Stewarts sites all say the DNA for our families is R1b, this is a lie, and it is because it is the most common and it pleases the most people, and it means more people will get tested and pretend they are of the bloodline.. nope you are being conned. Male line is I2b1 or J2, no other. Here are some who are trying to explain to the R1bs but they won't listen of course - all taken from the Stewart DNA Yahoo Group, I was attacked similarly by the same woman in the Douglas DNA group:
What you are missing is that R1B1* anything at some level, are all connected. You may have to go back a long way but they will connect. Now they all can't be Stewarts can they? Common sense tells us that some of them had to assume the name.
I am afraid you have snared yourself, the I2b1 Stewarts can demonstrate that they are all related, one common ancestor. They have low recurrence of surnames outside of Stewart, R1B1 does not. Some of the surnames that do show up on the I2b1 tests I have seen are all associated with the real Stewarts. One of the things that are expected is that there will be an occurrence of Non matching surnames. But one of the things that also would be expected with a family such as the Stewarts is non-matching surnames with connection to the family. The Stewarts often changed their name and are connected to such families as the Douglass, Napier, Lennox (Same as Napier), Menteith, Fleming, Maxwell, Grahams, Kennedy, ect,..ect,. Some of these names should show up as close matches. There is an I2B1 Stewart who has such matches, explain why?
Dr. Samuel Stuart
Problem is we are not talking about modern times, we are talking about over a thousand years ago, I2b1 was dominate. So it really doesn't matter what you find there now, does it? was Flaald born in 1980?
I will tell you what gave me the Idea about the I2b1 Stewarts. The examination of the available I2b1 DNA, by Joe Anderson Phd. M.D. Associated Grad study Genetic research. I asked him to look at some stuff and he did, that is what he told me.
Mutation rates are far more varied then you obviously think they are. You can have huge drift in just 4 generations. Although DNA can be stable for hundreds of years. A mutation rate of 3 or more, every one hundred years is in the realm of possibilities. You have not read about the studies the Chinese have done that is obvious.
I have reviewed your theory from Ryk's site, as well as here. I have read most of your old post's. You seem to go in any direction the wind blows, as long as its your direction.
I also know that the descendant you are talking about from Alexander 4th is your relation, isn't he Belinda? So if you were proved wrong you wouldn't be a Stewart would you? You have no creditability or at the very least are very, very bias. Doesn't leave room for objectivity, does it?
I will tell Dr. Anderson you said he is wrong about I2b1, because you have a preferred theory. May I tell him what your degree is in? Mine is in Anthropology.
Last this is supposed to be about Stewart DNA in general. Not just R1b1*, which you spend all your time on and put for the promotion of your theory for, dismissing everything else. When someone brings up something that doesn't agree, they are attacked and called names.
Bottom line, you have no proof, end of story.
Dr. Samuel Stuart
Four reasons why the I2B1 are descended from the High Stewards
There have been many things said to me over the last month such as I am
arrogant, mistaken, that I have not proven anything (even though I have), that the balance of evidence is against me (in spite of a lack of evidence to prove that), and that I'm argumentative and disrespectful (since when is providing proof disrespectful and argumentative). The word genuflection was used and I assure you I do not worship my family on bended knee. Many of you have said that you do not care if you are descended from the High Stewards but your reactions say otherwise. I must say the idea of digging up my ancestors just so people who have no proof of relation to them can see if they are related does not sit well with me or others. All of you should be working toward what this project was supposed to be about, finding your connections to each other and were your families come from. Not trying to prove that you are descended from the High Stewards. If your names were Smith something tells me that this project would be working towards its goal, instead you spend your time arguing and saying that you have proven that you are descended from the High Stewards, when you have proven NOTHING! All I have been trying to do is present my
information. When I do though, I am told I am wrong. Nobody wants to tell me how, just that I'm wrong. Well, when I started my Family history project some years ago I set out to prove it wrong as I believed it was all B.S., as every Stewart has stories. I was unable to prove otherwise and nobody else has been able to prove otherwise either. So I would like to present my information and evidence of my descent from King Robert II one more time for the benefit of everyone but especially for the Stewarts in the I2B1 haplotype and perhaps this will make it a little clearer.
My family History and Documents which can be found at
There are other Stewarts who can connect to the branch of Minto, although they lack the one document that absolutely proves their connection (There was a will that laid out the family descent but it was lost in the archives). There are many other records that indicate that they are from this line of Stewarts, including a family history written in 1807 and even George Edson, editor of the SCM, also states that they are undoubtedly from the Stewarts of Minto, and their DNA is the I2B1 haplotype. The Minto Stewarts are KNOWN to be from the High
Stewards, again, not assumed but known.
I can show how the Napier Family, who matches my DNA, connects to the Stewarts. Their Family history is documented to 1634. This history states that they were directly descended from John Napier 7th of Merchiston who was a mathematician and the inventor of Logarithms. The Following information about the Napier family comes from the Scots peerage.
John Napier 7th of Merchiston had 12 children, and his eighth born child by his 2nd wife Anne (Agnes) Chisholm, Daughter of Sir James Chisholm of Cromlix was a daughter named Margaret Napier. Margaret Napier married James Stewart 11th of Rosyth in 1606. The Napier to whom I match with in DNA is the descendant of a John Napier who was in all indication the child of the Stewart of Rosyth family (Grandson of John Napier 7th of Merchiston) and took the name Napier, his mother's name. This matches to their family history of being descended from John Napier 7th of Merchiston (only through a daughter) and explains why their DNA matches mine. The Stewarts of Rosyth were known, not just assumed but KNOWN, positively to be of descent from the High Stewards.
The Stewarts in the I2B1 Haplotype group form a very definable tree. This is not the case with the Stewarts in the R1B1 haplotype as many of them are related simply by the fact that they share the same Haplotype. This does not tie them to the High Stewards. It is only that they are related by Haplotype and the relation to each other may go back to time long before the Stewarts were ever in Scotland. Being that the R1B1 is the most common Haplotype in the U.K. and shared by more surnames than you can count, it is very likely that a large number of these Stewarts would not be descended from the high Stewards and would be among the many that took the name for varying reasons. I might add that history disagrees with the assumption that most Stewarts alive today descend from the High Stewards; the only real way the theory that Belinda Dettmann came up with works is if most are descended.
So in summation if someone can show me how I am wrong, I would like to know. I would also like to know who among you has as much documented evidence and is able to show how each different surname match on your DNA connects to your family. So, unless of course you completely dismiss my family history and my DNA (as is continually done even though no-one has any proof otherwise.) then you know that the so called "origin" for the High Stewards is I2b1.
These four examples presented here are more evidence, for all, that the I2B1 Haplotype are indeed Stewarts, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.
So as you can see, I am not the only one who knows this, so why are the R1bs so insistent that they are the true line? Well there are more of them for a start, see my other article (Ancient Shamans) about how they have tried to suppress the male line and take over.
As I find more information, I will post it here.
.. Tau Tia L Douglass OIO-KHTGP, CSsM&J.
©Copyright Ordo Infinitus Orbis_ 29th January 2012
Update: Just adding more proof of the DNA. Below is a screen capture from the Hamilton DNA site where the pink arrow points to the DNA of the current Duke of Hamilton.
Click the picture below to enlarge and compare the 37 markers. The first row from my own Father, and the second row the Duke of Hamilton. As you can see they are almost identical. Two markers are out by only 1 (marked pink), and they are both fast mutating markers, meaning their is no possibility that we are not related.